What exactly is "natural selection"?

[whois]

well, what do you know, the idea of HGT in humans is fought tooth and nail.
the idea of epigenetics likewise.
is there a connection?

i presented evidence of HGT being aquired by food intake, which GMO organisations would have reason to suppress.
Accordingly, Bühler believes the discovery is currently of particular interest in a non-medical field: "These RNA mechanisms have long been researched in plant biotechnology, where epigenetic control over gene expression could obviate the need to generate genetically modified organisms."

 

[Loudmouth]

well, what do you know, the idea of HGT in humans is fought tooth and nail.
the idea of epigenetics likewise.
is there a connection?

All I did was ask a simple question. Perhaps you could try to answer it this time.

Are you saying that animals as different as humans and bears boils down to epigenetics? Are you saying that if a bear was exposed to the same environment as humans that they would give birth to humans?

i presented evidence of HGT being aquired by food intake, which GMO organisations would have reason to suppress.

What plant DNA has inserted itself into the human genome because of eating GMO veggies?

 

[whois]

What plant DNA has inserted itself into the human genome because of eating GMO veggies?

this is the reason i don't like debating with you loudmouth, because you use far too many strawman tactics.
no, that isn't what i said at all, and i am not going to sit here and unravel it.

 

[Loudmouth]

this is the reason i don't like debating with you loudmouth, because you use far too many strawman tactics.
no, that isn't what i said at all, and i am not going to sit here and unravel it.

What do you think HGT is?

 

[whois]

What do you think HGT is?

genes that are transfered between disparate species.
the example i mentioned occured between an aphid and fungi, because the aphid ate the fungi for food.
GMO organizations would be aghast at such a notion.
then add this into the mix:
Accordingly, Bühler believes the discovery is currently of particular interest in a non-medical field: "These RNA mechanisms have long been researched in plant biotechnology, where epigenetic control over gene expression could obviate the need to generate genetically modified organisms."

it's very plain to me why the science establishment is bucking this stuff.

 

[Loudmouth]

genes that are transfered between disparate species.
the example i mentioned occured between an aphid and fungi, because the aphid ate the fungi for food.

Why would GM organizations be aghast at such a notion?

then add this into the mix:
Accordingly, Bühler believes the discovery is currently of particular interest in a non-medical field: "These RNA mechanisms have long been researched in plant biotechnology, where epigenetic control over gene expression could obviate the need to generate genetically modified organisms."

"As the scientists report in Nature today, a group of proteins known as the Paf1 complex (Paf1C) – itself part of the RNA polymerase complex – prevents small RNA molecules from silencing sections of the genome. When Paf1C was mutated in yeast, RNA fragments could be used to shut down targeted genome regions."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-genes-permanently-silenced-small-rnas.html#jCp

This only occurs in mutated eukaryotes. Eukaryotes with a functioning Paf1C gene are not affected by this mechanism.

it's very plain to me why the science establishment is bucking this stuff.

It isn't plain to me why you think these are viable mechanisms for explaining the history of evolutionary change in life. Can you explain that?

 

[whois]

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-genes-permanently-silenced-small-rnas.html#jCp

This only occurs in mutated eukaryotes. Eukaryotes with a functioning Paf1C gene are not affected by this mechanism.

no it doesn't.
from the link:
Paf1C is a protein which also occurs in higher organisms, in a form scarcely differing from that in yeast. Bühler comments: "It's intriguing that we can now use RNA molecules to induce epigenetic gene silencing in a sequence-specific manner, and that the same protein also occurs in mammalian cells; this may open up new avenues for RNA-based therapeutics. At the same time, a number of well-known obstacles remain to be overcome."

 

[Loudmouth]

no it doesn't.
from the link:
Paf1C is a protein which also occurs in higher organisms, in a form scarcely differing from that in yeast. Bühler comments: "It's intriguing that we can now use RNA molecules to induce epigenetic gene silencing in a sequence-specific manner, and that the same protein also occurs in mammalian cells; this may open up new avenues for RNA-based therapeutics. At the same time, a number of well-known obstacles remain to be overcome."

""As the scientists report in Nature today, a group of proteins known as the Paf1 complex (Paf1C) – itself part of the RNA polymerase complex – prevents small RNA molecules from silencing sections of the genome. When Paf1C was mutated in yeast, RNA fragments could be used to shut down targeted genome regions."

You have to destroy the function of Paf1C before you can get the effect.

 

[whois]

""As the scientists report in Nature today, a group of proteins known as the Paf1 complex (Paf1C) – itself part of the RNA polymerase complex – prevents small RNA molecules from silencing sections of the genome. When Paf1C was mutated in yeast, RNA fragments could be used to shut down targeted genome regions."

You have to destroy the function of Paf1C before you can get the effect.

and the problem is what exactly?
you cannot possibly say mutations are unheard of in evolution.
face it loudmouth, epigenetics can cause permanent silencing of genes.
this has 2 implications.
one is for evolution as a whole.
the other is for GMOs.

the second implication is probably why there is conflicting debate about epigenetics.

 

[Loudmouth]

and the problem is what exactly?

Wild populations don't have that mutation so that mechanism can not be responsible for adaptive change in real populations.

face it loudmouth, epigenetics can cause permanent silencing of genes.

Only in mutated lab strains of asexually reproducing yeast, and only for a limited number of generations.

It isn't a valid mechanism for explaining the changes seen in wild populations.

the second implication is probably why there is conflicting debate about epigenetics.

There really isn't a debate. 99% of biologists I know think that epigenetics may occur but it is very limited in scope. The major mechanism for adaptive evolution is still mutations filtered through natural selection.

That's why I keep asking you a simple question. Do you think that the physical differences between chimps and humans is due to differences in the DNA sequence of their genomes? Could you attempt an answer?

 

[whois]

go tell it to the mountain loudmouth.
the paper SPECIFICALLY states this protein is present in mammels.

furthermore, permanent means forever, not just a few.

i'm not going to argue these points with you.

 

[Loudmouth]

go tell it to the mountain loudmouth.
the paper SPECIFICALLY states this protein is present in mammels.

The functioning protein is present in mammals. What does that protein do?

"As the scientists report in Nature today, a group of proteins known as the Paf1 complex (Paf1C) – itself part of the RNA polymerase complex – prevents small RNA molecules from silencing sections of the genome."

What they did in yeast is knock out the proteins that prevent RNA silencing.

furthermore, permanent means forever, not just a few.

Yes, in asexually reproducing yeast that have had certain genes artificially knocked out.

i'm not going to argue these points with you.

At least demonstrate that you understand your own references when they say that they had to mutate the naturally occurring proteins in order to get RNA silencing. Obviously, this mechanism doesn't occur in nature.

 

[whois]

At least demonstrate that you understand your own references when they say that they had to mutate the naturally occurring proteins in order to get RNA silencing. Obviously, this mechanism doesn't occur in nature.

this is so pathetic of you loudmouth that i almost didn't respond to it.
yes indeed there is no such thing as a protein being naturally mutated.

go away mr strawman.

 

[Loudmouth]

this is so pathetic of you loudmouth that i almost didn't respond to it.
yes indeed there is no such thing as a protein being naturally mutated.

The natural proteins do not have those mutations, and the naturally occurring proteins prevent RNA silencing.

"As the scientists report in Nature today, a group of proteins known as the Paf1 complex (Paf1C) – itself part of the RNA polymerase complex – prevents small RNA molecules from silencing sections of the genome."

go away mr strawman.

What strawman? Do you even know what a strawman argument is?

 

[whois]

The natural proteins do not have those mutations, and the naturally occurring proteins prevent RNA silencing.

of course!
that's why they had to mutate it to get the effect.
just stop already loudmouth.

 

[Loudmouth]

of course!
that's why they had to mutate it to get the effect.
just stop already loudmouth.

Since this epigenetic mechanism doesn't exist in nature, how is it relevant to the evolution of wild populuations?

 

[whois]

Since this epigenetic mechanism doesn't exist in nature, how is it relevant to the evolution of wild populuations?

oh i don't know, maybe it's relevant just like all the other mutations in evolution.
i won't arguer this point with you any longer.

 

[bhsmte]

oh i don't know, maybe it's relevant just like all the other mutations in evolution.
i won't arguer this point with you any longer.

Good idea.

 

[Loudmouth]

oh i don't know, maybe it's relevant just like all the other mutations in evolution.

How can a mechanism that doesn't cause change in wild populations be relevant?

 

[Loudmouth]

This is one of whois' own references:

"MUTATIONS are the ultimate source of genetic variation that natural selection acts upon. Understanding the rate at which mutations arise and the distribution of fitness effects of spontaneous mutations is therefore of central importance to the study of evolutionary biology (Haldane 1937; Kondrashov 1988; Partridge and Barton 1993; Charlesworth and Hughes 1996, 2000; Hughes 2010; Bank et al. 2014)."

"Natural selection must occur to some extent during microbial mutation accumulation experiments because colonies must grow big enough to become visible, resulting in an effective population size (Ne) >1. Beneficial and deleterious mutations should be subject to effective selection when Nes > 1, where s is the absolute value of the fitness effect of the mutation, and the fluctuating population size of microbial MA experiments may further increase the efficacy of selection (Otto and Whitlock 1997)."
http://www.genetics.org/content/197/3/981.full